Talk:Kirkwall Rebellion (9:37 Dragon)
Name change? The name of this page really doesn't make much sense. I understand it when looking through the lens of the game (it's the second large engagement in the game), but from a historical standpoint, it's at least the seventh battle Kirkwall has seen. (1st, Slave Revolt, 2nd, Qunari Invasion, 3rd, Orlais Invasion, 4th, Revolt Against Orlais, 5th, Viscount Threnhold's failed revolt against the Templars, 6th, the second Qunari Invasion, and finally this fight.) :I agree. Even the article on the "First Battle of Kirkwall" was later moved to "Second Qunari Invasion of Kirkwall", acknowledging wider historical events. I would support correcting this article's title as well, to either "Seventh Battle of Kirkwall" (or whatever number this battle is), or perhaps something more unique. -- Commdor (Talk) 02:33, August 24, 2011 (UTC) I don't agree about a name change required. But if there is a need to make this page more specific then how about "Second Battle of Kirkwall of the Dragon Age". Balitant (talk) 02:42, August 24, 2011 (UTC) :Let me expand on this position Commdor. There is supposedly a history of conflict between the cities of the Free marhces so it is possible that we cannot identify the amount of battles that have taken place in its fictional history. Furthermore, bioware may expand on said history later on, hence why am not in support of renaming this "Seventh battle of Kirkwall". Balitant (talk) 02:46, August 24, 2011 (UTC) ::As I said above, I'm not particularly attached to "Seventh Battle of Kirkwall" either. If anything, it's a placeholder until we can come up with something better that everyone can agree with. My bottom line here is simply to fix the title. As the unregistered user who brought this up points out, the current title doesn't make sense. -- Commdor (Talk) 02:52, August 24, 2011 (UTC) A few other possible titles I'll throw out there: "Kirkwall Mage-Templar Crisis", "Battle of Kirkwall (9:37 Dragon)", "Kirkwall Annulment Crisis", "Kirkwall Mage Uprising", "Kirkwall Mage Revolt". I'm favoring the second one at the moment, it's specific enough. I also like the first one. The last three may or may not be neutral enough. I'm still open to other suggestions. -- Commdor (Talk) 03:19, August 24, 2011 (UTC) My vote would be for Battle of Kirkwall (9:37 Dragon), to keep it somewhat neutral. (VicGeorge2K9 (talk) 11:10, August 24, 2011 (UTC)) :"Kirkwall Mage-Templar Civil War" can also work too. I agree that the current name isn't good, and "Seventh Battle of Kirkwall" sounds a bit awkward. I more or less like "Battle of Kirkwall (9:37 Dragon)" because of the use of parentheses. Although it is specific, it doesn't describe the actual nature of the war, which is what we should aim for a name I think. --'D.' (talk ·''' ) 17:29, August 25, 2011 (UTC) ::Since "Battle of Kirkwall (9:37 Dragon)" seems to be what we're leaning towards, I'll update the tag. Any further comments? -- Commdor (Talk) 01:10, August 30, 2011 (UTC) How about "Mage-Templar Battle of Kirkwall" It mentions both factions it's neautral states what happend (Battle) and mentions Kirkwall. JoshofBlades (talk) 01:44, August 30, 2011 (UTC)JoshofBlades Might I suggest, "The Annulment of Kirkwall" or "The Annulment of the Gallows"? Meredith's declaration was the spark of the actual battle and the battle was an attempt to carry out the Right of Annulment. Ramifications for the rest of Thedas and the lead up aside, the battle was an Annulment. I think it important that this should be reflected in the article title. --Ravenfirelight (talk) 21:11, May 21, 2012 (UTC) Conflict infobox usage The conflict infobox was originally based on a typical wikipedia military conflict template, e.g. Pacific War. As such it is not really appropriate to put individual names in the casualties and strengths fields - commander deaths are denoted by a cross. The result section was also meant for sociopolitical consequences - civilian deaths usually go in a combined cell below casualties if they didn't below to either side. Of course, creativity is allowed, but I am just pointing something out. Sporran (talk) 00:27, September 17, 2011 (UTC) Meredith issued an arrest warrant for Anders "Despite three years of inaction, Meredith issued an arrest warrant for Anders,..." Really? Can't recall when she did it at all. I'd delete that. Opinions? Asherinka (talk) 01:46, January 12, 2012 (UTC) Article neutrality A little proposal to anybody who wants to express his own fascinating opinion on the topic: lets stick to '''facts and avoid mentioning motives of the participants or speculations on what could or could not be in this article. Because facts can not be debated while motives and speculations can. If you want to engage in a mage-templar debate, go to the forums. Who exactly was in the Chantry when it exploded IS a speculation. However that everybody who was there died is certain. Etc. Sorry for the rant) Asherinka (talk) 08:26, January 24, 2012 (UTC) Meredith & ROA @the last editor (unsigned) There are two possible interpretations of why she invoked ROA: * In response to Anders actions * Because she was previously not allowed by Elthina, and once Elthina was dead she had the right. I.e. not "in response" but rather "using as an excuse". See here. Since both are highly debatable, I propose that we do not include in the article any reason why she did it and simply state that she did. Anyone who wants to discuss reasons of the participants instead of the facts can go to the forums. Asherinka (talk) 09:40, February 8, 2012 (UTC) Demons Should we really have demons on the side of the mages? I've always sided with the mages in this battle and I've never fought alongside a demon (with the possible exception of Justice if he/it counts) and have fought against quite a few demons.--Gboy4 (talk) 21:29, February 26, 2012 (UTC) :No, we should not :) I removed them) Asherinka (talk) 00:42, February 27, 2012 (UTC) Commanders It occurred to me that Fenris, Merrill(!), Bethany(! O_o), Anders and Carver are not commanders in this battle... Shall we remove them? Aveline is the only companion who leads anybody (the guards). Asherinka (talk) 00:49, February 27, 2012 (UTC) Probably. I think they belong in Belligerents section. Anders might be considered a commander in a sense, but that's bit of a stretch. Also, most of these "commanders" that were Hawke's companions can go either way. I've had Fenris fight for mages before. --GabrielleduVent (talk) 00:56, February 27, 2012 (UTC) And Merrill has supported Templars in one of my playthroughs. --''--Isolationistmagi'' 06:32, February 27, 2012 (UTC) You can make all of them fight for both sides. Fenris, Aveline and Carver (if Grey Warden) will fight for mages, Anders (100% rival only), Merrill and Bethany (if Grey Warden) will fight for templars. Actually, you've just reminded me about something I wanted to do long ago, guys)... Asherinka (talk) 10:05, February 27, 2012 (UTC) In that case, it seems best to remove both Hawke and his companions from the commanders section, both because of the fact that they aren't really commanders and none of them is affixed to a particular side. --''--Isolationistmagi'' 20:20, February 28, 2012 (UTC) I think it is better for Hawke to be listed under both captions, but I agree that all companions should be removed. Asherinka (talk) 20:24, February 28, 2012 (UTC) :I also think all companions should be removed from the commanders section, especially as they can go either way. I think Hawke should be listed as Asherinka said, since Meredith or Orsino pretty much rely on them in a way. 03:49, May 19, 2012 (UTC) ::http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Template%3AConflictInfoBox/doc Notes were left on this page for the correct usage of the conflictinfobox. They were based on reading countless war pages on wikpedia. There is a basic definition of commander in the guidelines - i.e. in command of at least one contingent of troops. This makes someone such as Ser Cauthrien eligible to be put in the commanders section but not someone like Fenris. Which contingent of troops did Fenris command exactly? The commanders section is not an excuse to enter in a link for every companion in the game. Sporran (talk) 09:49, May 19, 2012 (UTC) :::Fair enough. I think we can just remove all companions, although Aveline should be kept as commander for the templar's side since she leads the guardsmen if she doesn't side with Hawke—unless I'm misunderstanding something. 15:37, May 19, 2012 (UTC) ::::You are right, but not entirely. In this case she leads the guardsmen, but when they enter the Gallows and Aveline sees Hawke, there is a cutscene and Aveline says that she owes nothing to Hawke now, but doesn't want to fight, since Hawke saved her life. With that she leaves and a templar rallies the guardsmen instead. I'd simply remove her as well. Asherinka (talk) 19:39, May 19, 2012 (UTC) :::::Oh, okay. I don't think there'll be much disagreement about removing the companions (as they are not commanders—it was probably just to link them as notable characters), though I guess it's only arguable for Hawke. 20:28, May 19, 2012 (UTC) Companions were removed from the infobox per discussion. Whether Hawke should be removed or listed is still to be decided. I'd rather keep him\her as I've written above. Asherinka (talk) 20:35, May 19, 2012 (UTC) Casualties Currently we have "many civilians" on both sides. I wonder if there actually were many civilians, I don't remember seeing or killing any on the way to the Gallows.. And I also wonder if they should be listed at all since they do not belong to either side. If they should, may be we could write it under the same caption, but below (where the † is in the "Commanders" section). Same goes for the Chantry members - are we implicitly stating that the Chantry was on the templars side? PS And the guards do not support the templars if Aveline is on the mages side. They do only if Aveline is on the templars side, otherwise she says that they remain neutral.Asherinka (talk) 20:54, February 28, 2012 (UTC) :Per your reasoning, I went ahead and removed them. Because of the way the infobox is created, it's rather awkward to list civilians since they don't explicitly take side, and are not really part of the conflict (indirectly, but aren't actively fighting against one side). I've also removed the Chantry and the guardsmen for now, though I guess we could list guardsmen on both side. 03:49, May 19, 2012 (UTC) ::Guardsmen are either on the templars side or neutral, they never take the mages side. Asherinka (talk) 20:11, May 19, 2012 (UTC) :::Shows how much I remember about this. :D That being said, I've removed the "unresolved" tag. 20:28, May 19, 2012 (UTC) Page title I am reverting the page's title back to "Kirkwall Rebellion (9:37 Dragon)". The reason stated for being the only notable rebellion in kirkwall's history is untrue as at least one more exists. Which is the slave rebellion which overthrew its Tevinter rulers in -25 Ancient. 00:50, January 13, 2014 (UTC) Is ser karras alive in canon? Hello, I read the Prelude "Given that according to Ser Karras Meredith had requested the Right of Annulment from the Divine in Val Royeaux even prior to the described events, the situation became extremely tense." Is ser karras alive in bioware canon? since karras will tell you that if he alive. Ingame we must kill him if we choose free the mages except humorous hawke or varric in the party. Wiryawan310 (talk) 09:25, December 23, 2016 (UTC)